Saturday, 12 July 2014

The Buddha's Army

In May this year, at Amaravati in England,
there was a five-day gathering of monks and nuns from all over the world. They
were mostly (but not exclusively) of Western origin, and some (but by no means
all) hailed from branch monasteries of Wat Pah Pong in Thailand. What they had
in common was that they all considered themselves to be disciples of Wat Pah
Pong’s founder, Ven Ajahn Chah, although the majority had neither met him nor
trained under him. But then again, many of Ajahn Chah’s samana disciples
weren’t present. The identity of the group is therefore difficult to define.
Even more vague to define was the purpose of the meeting. There were many
Dhamma-talks, attended by hundreds of people – but less than ten of the
assembly gave these teachings. Topics were discussed with no intention to
arrive at a conclusion. This was no synod convened to debate the knottier
points of the teachings, nor a conference to which invited speakers presented
papers on ‘Buddhism and …’, nor was it to indict or castigate miscreants. In
fact there was hardly any business to speak of: the abbots agreed to propose
the admission of one monastery to the Wat Pah Pong communion, and at the end of
the session, there was a consensus that the five-day meeting had been so
meaningful that we should have another one in three years’ time.

The rationale behind such meetings was that
those who wished to meet do so in order to meet. Somehow in that mingling of
people who see each other rarely and have different views (and to my knowledge
included monks who have clashed with each other over the years) something
precious is brought to the fore that encourages and balances us. We didn't
gather to decide who’s right or wrong, or the way Buddhism is or should be; we
met to get beyond our personal views and perspectives. And if that sounds
facile, I'd add that it touches into a central issue in Dhamma-practice:
attachment to views. And that sharing time together creates mutual respect and
harmony. Even Buddhists don’t always
arrive at this.

To get beyond views doesn't mean that one
shouldn't have any. Of course we all do – but because of that it becomes
important to express them in order to reflect on their validity. So: a major
theme concerned how we are living the Buddha's Way? Are we getting too
tech-savvy and losing touch with simplicity? Or do gadgets make things simpler
in a global age? Is the transcendent core of the Dhamma being gutted by ‘this
world only’ secularism, or does mindfulness for businessmen, athletes and
stress reduction maintain the Buddha's intention to alleviate human suffering?
Are monasteries failing to deal with issues of the world, or do they present valuable
models of communality, harmlessness and frugality? Are we actualizing what we
hold dear, or merely being oppositional to what we don’t approve of? And
speaking personally, the point for me is to contemplate when and how I get
tight and righteous, to understand what I am defending and to come to terms
with my anxiety or judgements.

There were many more topics – in fact too
many to cover – but one that sprang up concerned layteachers teaching
mindfulness to the military. Despite the apparent contradiction in employing
Dhamma-practice in the theatre of war, the argument in its favour (one that
found no support in the meeting) is that the use of mindfulness may lessen the
damage that soldiers do. That people who have chosen to join the armed forces
have done so with the knowledge that in serving their country, they may very
well be ordered to fire on others with intent to kill. So, the argument goes,
would it not be better if, instead of panicking under fire and shooting
everything in sight (as with the My Lai massacre in Vietnam), such personnel
remained calm and only shot selected targets when necessary? The topic can
enlarge to the old conundrum: is there such a thing as a ‘just war’? Take the
case of Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 20% of the population and
almost all the monks: wouldn’t some sort of armed defensive action have been
justifiable? Come to think of it, didn’t Buddhist monks in Thailand give
blessings to tanks in order to ‘defend the country against Communism’? But when
does a protective policing mission turn into the need to knock out the insurgents
– which in turn triggers the counterattacks we call 'terrorism'?

The conundrum becomes easier to unpick when
we acknowledge that these instances, although involving Buddhists, are around
their secular concerns (such as power and territory) and are best dealt with by
secular means. And mindfulness, divorced from its application as ‘the direct
path to nibbana’, is currently being used as a secular tool for many other
non-nibbanic purposes. So fair enough; when people start killing others the
Buddha's position is clear: 'hatred is never resolved by hatred', but when
those in conflict don't attend to Dhamma, then wise secular means are needed.
Ideally this entails resolution by dialogue supervised by an impartial third
party; failing that containment of aggression may have to be effected through
military means.

The vital function that Dhamma-practice
performs is one of understanding and loosening the attachment to views, to all religions
and to all ‘isms’ – which in many cases forms the source of the conflict. So it is a cruel irony when militant action is
being advocated on behalf of ‘Buddhism.’ Take the example of Ashin Wiratha in Burma and
the Bodu Bala Sena group in Sri Lanka, both of which parties encourage a firm resistance
to Islam that has resulted in massacres of Muslims and destruction of Muslim
shrines. Of course, they have their justifications: there are claims that
conflict was initiated by Muslims, and that the Buddhists see themselves and
their culture being overwhelmed by proactive Muslims who are backed by wealthy
Islamic nations. But the Buddhist fundamentalist attack on Muslims led to the
Muslim fundamentalist attack on the Sri Maha Bodhi temple at Bodh-Gaya. And so it
goes: human conflict reverberates as ever.

Buddhism has sprouted fundamentalist views since
the time of Devadatta (the Buddha's cousin) who advocated stricter renunciant
standards, accused the Buddha of being lax and even instigated attempts on his
life. As often as monks have lapsed into decadence through material greed,
others have railed and fought– often with each other. Nichiren condemned all
forms of Buddhism that differed from the Lotus Sutra; Tibetan lineages have
used armies against each other; Zen masters supported the Japanese aggression
in the Second World War. Christian fundamentalists and jihadists you are not
alone! Maybe there should be an Inter-Faith Fundamentalist Meeting to share
views and strategies. If so, they'd probably conclude that Jesus, with his ‘forgive your
enemies’ stuff was flaky, and that
the Buddha, who exhibited little interest in recruiting people to the cause, wasn't very committed either.

Nigrodha,
you may think: ‘The ascetic Gotama says this in order to get disciples.’ But
you should not regard it like that. Let him who is your teacher remain your
teacher. Or you may think: ‘He wants us to abandon our rules.’ But…Let your
rules remain your rules. Or you may think: ‘He wants us to abandon our way of
life.’ … Let your way of life remain as it was … I do not speak for any of
these reasons.

There
are, Nigrodha, unwholesome things that have not been abandoned, tainted,
conducive to rebirth, fearful, productive of painful results in the future … It
is for the abandonment of these things that I teach Dhamma. If you practise
accordingly, these tainted things will be abandoned … and you will attain to
and dwell in this very life by your own insight and realization, in the
fullness of perfected wisdom.
D.25.23 (Udumbarika-Sihanāda sutta)

And why was the Buddha so cool about setting
up Buddhism? My reflection is that once you identify people (including
yourself) with actions, appearance or belief, then you set up the basis for
closing down human empathy, and all hell breaks loose.

The problem is worsened when Dhamma is identified
with a nation-state. ‘Buddhism’ as a religious culture began when Dhamma-values
were espoused by emperor Asoka in the middle of the third century BCE. Not only
did Asoka avow and encourage the Dhamma, he also supported Buddhist monasteries
and convened a synod at Patna in order to clarify the teachings and purify the
Sangha by expelling monks of heretical views. The image of the benign Buddhist
ruler who patronises the Sangha has been modelled throughout Asia ever since.
However although the intent may be benevolent and the association of the ruler
with Dhamma may indeed be good for that society, the association of the State
with the Sangha can have side-effects. That is, the Triple Gem comes to endorse
the State, its aims, institutions and survival, and the Sangha becomes worldly
and political.

Such actions may save Buddhists but lose
Buddhism. This is dilemma of many Buddhist countries. The Sangha needs
governance, but who governs it? The original model was of governance by Vinaya
as enacted by small local fraternities. And what the nation-state finds
difficult is that the Sangha isn’t a centralized institution that can be easily
controlled.Certainly this means that even
in the Buddha's time disagreement was usual and occasionally led to conflict,
but this is why the Buddha's exhortation was to meet often, in large
assemblies, and to attend to matters in harmony. Accordingly, the Vinaya stipulates
that one cannot come to a decision unless all relevant parties are physically
present, to which is added the Dhamma-instruction to regard each other with
kindness to the degree of sharing food and lodgings together. Rather than create
a centralized institution, the Buddha’s instruction was to live together and
build up empathy and mutual respect. These rather than political debate and
legal finesse were the basis for determining what was correct; the details could
change in accordance with circumstance. So there is no Buddhist ideology. But isn't
it the case in human history, that after the combatants have battered each
other to a standstill, there is a wave of recognition that ideology doesn't
bring around happiness and well-being?In
fact it is conducive to just the opposite.

Will Buddhism survive? Only when and where
people put the Buddha's teachings into practice. That may sound uncertain, but history bears witness to the precariousness of human life and
all its empires and organizations. And that it is by transcending the State
that the Dhamma survives the State's demise. The Islamic conquest of Northern
India destroyed monasteries and monks, but it didn't destroy the Dhamma. The
Soviet takeover of Mongolia caused the deaths of many monks, but with the
passing of that power, Buddhism is emerging there again. The Chinese conquest
of Tibet had much the same effect. Buddhism
is growing again China and has spread to the West. Put even more simply and obviously,
the death of the Buddha didn't destroy Buddha-Dhamma. It's only Buddhists who
destroy Buddhism.

So the next time you go to a conference on
Buddhism and the rights and wrongs of the world, it’s good to ask yourself: ‘Is
this message conducive to the understanding and relinquishment of the cause of
suffering? Is this presentation respectful of those I disagree with?’ If it is,
you can be sure that it is rightly said and is line with the Way of the
Awakened one.

And
how is a person practising neither for his welfare nor for the welfare of
others? Here, some person does not himself abstain from the destruction of life
and does not encourage others to abstain from the destruction of life ... He
does not himself abstain from liquor...and does not encourage others to abstain...monks,
does a person live neither for his own good nor for the good of others? He
neither practises for the removal of lust, hatred and delusion himself, nor
does he encourage others to do so. A
4.99

And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one is protecting
oneself? By patience, harmlessness, loving-kindness and sympathy. It is in such
a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

1 comment:

To the question of teaching mindfulness to soldiers (in this case police): This organization has given some serious thought to the issue and may be interesting to you. http://www.mindfulnessandjustice.org/about/cheri-maples/